?If Obama does win re-election, he’ll likely preside over four more years of slow recovery, protect the Affordable Care Act until people get used to its benefits, protect Roe-v-Wade with another court pick or two, and go down in history as the best Democratic president since FDR. Come 2016 we’ll regret the 22nd Amendment.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah…[take a breath]…hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah…
Oh, man, my sides hurt.
Glad to give you a laugh!
To clarify, I still think Obama’s no better than a 50-50 bet for re-election. But the economy is going to get better between 2012 and 2016 no matter who is in office (unless it’s Ron Paul…), and that will benefit the popularity of whoever wins in 2012. Come 2016 we’ll want to re-elect the president, whether it’s Obama or a Republican, but if it’s Obama we won’t have the option.
Regret what? Presidential Term limits? After 2016 and he’s gone? (as if…)
Personally I wish we had a recall procedure.
Regret what? Presidential Term limits? After 2016 and he’s gone? (as if…)
Personally I wish we had a recall procedure.
Jim,
the economy will NOT get better without some sort of change in taxation or regulation that helps business decide which way to jump. If, God forbid, BHO gets another 4 years, he’ll make this last 3 look easy. He’ll tie up every industry he can lay his hands on.
And it is against that kind of possibility that people continue to store beans and bullets.
the economy will NOT get better
It’s already getting better, just very slowly.
He’ll tie up every industry he can lay his hands on.
He hasn’t tied up any industries yet. The ones complaining the loudest — Wall Street, oil & gas, and health care — are booming.
Yeah, Keystone XL is moving ahead like gangbusters!
I am sure Boeing is happy to discover the new industrial flexibility under the Obama Administration.
Boeing’s share price
1/19/2009: $42
12/7/2011: $71
Clearly Obama has Boeing all tied up.
In May Boeing stock was trading at over $80, then on May 15th Obama’s union-packed National Labor Relations Board ruled that the company can’t open operations in a non-union state, sending the stock price spiraling down into the $50’s by August. It recovered somewhat in September when the Republican controlled House voted on a bill to strip the NRLB of its powers in the Boeing ruling, and some more when Governor Nicki Halley of South Carolina got 16 other governors to demand the NRLB dismiss the case against Boeing.
The stock price still hasn’t recovered to it’s pre-NRLB levels, even after shipping its first 787 to a customer and reaching an agreement with the unions, and probably won’t until Republicans definitively roll back Obama’s union cronies.
Telling a company where it can and can’t build its products is not “tying it up”, correct, Grinning Numbskull?
Telling retailers what light bulbs they can and can’t sell is not “tying them up”, amirite, Grinning Numbskull?
As long as there’s anemic record-low “growth”, Grinning Numbskull is on board with whatever his Messiah-Emperor desires!
The Wagner Act has been the law of the land since long before Obama was born, through Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses, and it doesn’t bar Boeing from building planes in South Carolina. It does bar Boeing from building planes in South Carolina in retaliation for legal union activities. When Boeing brazenly announced that they were doing just that, was the NLRB supposed to ignore their mandate to enforce the law, and pretend they hadn’t noticed?
Federal light bulb efficiency regulations are part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which passed Congress with bipartisan support and was signed into law by George W. Bush.
It does bar Boeing from building planes in South Carolina in retaliation for legal union activities. When Boeing brazenly announced that they were doing just that
That never happened.
Federal light bulb efficiency regulations are part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which passed Congress with bipartisan support and was signed into law by George W. Bush.
Yes, the Bush administration was a disaster on many fronts, which is why the Republicans lost big in 2006. Obama is worse. We’re looking for better.
That never happened
Here’s the Boeing CEO in a 2009 conference call:
It isn’t the only statement of the sort. Under the law, unions have the right to strike, and management can’t deny that right by moving jobs.
That is not “retaliation.” No jobs were lost in Seattle. It was simply a sensible business decision to avoid future labor problems for new jobs. There is nothing illegal about it, even under the odious Wagner Act. And if you don’t think that vicious, arbitrary and illegal tactics like this on the part of the NLRB don’t affect job creation, you’re as insane as the president.
If the unions hadn’t gone on strike, according to Boeing, the new production and jobs would be in Puget Sound. Boeing effectively gave the unions a choice: give up your right to strike, or give up new union jobs. That’s certainly enough to warrant a charge of violating the Wagner Act, and Boeing will have its day in court to defend itself.
don’t affect job creation
Boeing is going to make these planes no matter what the NLRB does, because it’s the profitable thing to do. “Leave the job creators alone” has become a tiresome whine, as if anyone who meets a payroll should therefore be above the law.
and Boeing will have its day in court to defend itself.
Obama and his NLRB are on record stating they wanted a negotiated settlement. Boeing defending itself in court was never in the equation.
Boeing is going to make these planes no matter what the NLRB does, because it’s the profitable thing to do.
What a crock. Lets force Boeing to spend millions of dollars in delays and legal expenses; they’ll make plenty of profit anyway. Civility aside, you’re full of shit.
“give up new union jobs”
Refusing to hire new workers is almost by definition not retaliation against the existing workers.
In the Brave New Hopey-Changey World, inaction is an action, and subject to regulation, remember?
See also: Individual Mandate
True. Unless overturned by SCOTUS next year, the current legal precedent is that “mental activity” (i.e.: thinking) is subject to federal regulation.
Those stock prices couldn’t have anything to do with Boeing finally being able to deliver the 787 (some 3 years late) and 747-8, could it? Not that Obama had anything to do with the delay but comparing the stock price without considering the other factors is stupid.
If Obama was as powerful as the right pretends, and as anti-business as the right alleges, there’s no way Boeing stock would be doing as well as it is. Ditto corporate profits in general, US oil and gas production, etc. Either Obama doesn’t actually want to hurt those businesses, or he doesn’t have the power to do so, because they are clearly doing very well.
I have heard that the reason Boeing stock prices are up is that their money managers are artificially propping it up. According to my source they are doing this by stretching out the payback period of the money they borrowed to design/build the 787.
Instead of taking X% of profits to pay back the loan in (grabbing numbers out of the air) 10 years, they are paying a smaller percentage each “month”, stretching out the payback period. The “increased” profits look better on the balance sheet.
However in the long run this is a bad deal because the cost of that borrowed money will be much larger.
I cannot prove/disprove this theory.
A federal judge had to tell Obama appointee Salazar to get his finger out re Gulf drilling.
But, no, Barky isn’t tying anything up. Delusional Jim says so.
The EPA plans to outlaw Yellowstone Park with its proposed ozone rulings.
But no, certified Grinning Numbskull Jim says Obama is a benevolent wonderful God.
Can ya do it without being insulting? Civility, look it up.
I doubt he’ll win in 2012. A bigger question is whether he might face impeachment over CBS News Fast and Furious revelation, which is the memos making clear that the program was trying to make crime worse so they could make the case for tighter restrictions on long gun sales.
So far no one high up has had to resign over Fast and Furious, and no one at any level has gone to jail, despite a Republican House that would love to pin a big scandal on Obama. Compare that to other administrations: Reagan and George W. Bush had high level people convicted of crimes, but neither of them even came close to being impeached.
Really? The investigation is only just beginning. Just last Friday, the DoJ essentially admitted to lying to Congress, and because the wheels of justice are running a little slow; Jim’s claiming victory?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
That would be one each over 8 years. Obama could see an AG in less than 4, oh the irony. Where is the Special prosecutor?
Not only that, but who is Jim talking about for Bush, Libby? The guy who was convicted of being the one who outed someone who wasn’t a spy, even though he wasn’t the leaker?
Remember, two of those charges he was convicted on were bullsh*t “making false statements.” Oh, and let’s not forget that Armitage, who actually did it, was told by the prosecutor not to let that exculpatory information out, and Investors Business Daily said of the trial “From top to bottom, this has been one of the most disgraceful abuses of prosecutorial power in this country’s history.”
The head of the ATF had to resign at the end of August. The wheels are grinding slow, Jim. Let’s hope they also grind exceedingly fine.
I remember Democrats being sure that the US attorney firings would put someone in jail, or that Plamegate would force Cheney to resign. It was wishful thinking, just like the notion that Fast and Furious will get Obama impeached. Remember that by the time the House took up impeachment over Watergate there’d been multiple cabinet-level firings, and criminal charges against a whole bunch of lower-level people.
The idea that Obama purposely fanned border violence in order to build political support for gun control (something he’s otherwise shown zero interest in) is a neat story for people who are predisposed to consider him a crook, but a story is not a scandal, much less a crime. Everything we know so far can more plausibly be explained by inertia, incompetence, and bureaucratic ass-covering.
The difference, Jim, is that a couple hundred people died this time.
A death toll doesn’t make much difference. People die all the time at the hands of Mexican drug gangs, and they’d die whether or not ATF (under either Bush or Obama) botched sting operations. The GOP position on gun control is that bad guys will find a way to get guns regardless of gun laws. And now the GOP is going to pivot to making ATF/DOJ/Obama responsible for gun crimes because they didn’t enforce those pointless gun laws? A good scandal has to make sense, and this one doesn’t, except as anti-Obama wishful thinking.
The only way this becomes a big deal is if the Republicans find hard evidence of an illegal cover-up. Sometimes politicians very stupidly commit crimes in order to avoid embarrassment (see: Nixon). If Obama ordered Holder to use the ATF or FBI to destroy evidence, or tamper with an investigation, and the GOP got their hands on the memo or tape, that would be a big deal. It just isn’t very likely that such a smoking gun exists and will be found.
The issue is not enforcement of gun laws. The issue is actively breaking those laws. Conspiratorially. That is a scandal. A cover-up would be a cherry on top.
The issue is actively breaking those laws.
No, it isn’t. Law enforcement has wide latitude to let people break laws, and even to encourage and facilitate law breaking, in order to stop bigger criminals and bigger crimes. Doing such a poor job of it is embarrassing, but it isn’t illegal.
Jim, it’s pretty simple. If you help someone commit a crime, then you are an accessory to the crime. That, especially for murder, is a very serious crime in its own right.
Guns from an ATF program found their way into Mexican drug cartel hands. The Mexican authorities weren’t informed and no attempt was made to track these weapons or prevent crimes with them prior to their recovery from crime scenes. Two hundred people died at crime scenes where these guns turned up. At least one was a US citizen and law enforcement officer which means US law applies not just a foreign government’s laws. There’s no way law enforcement has this kind of latitude.
The question here is whether a reasonable person would expect that the above actions would lead to these guns being used to further criminal activity, particularly murder. I think they would, especially given both the relative usefulness of the weapons in question and the thousands of killings going on across the border. Hence, my position that this a case of being an accessory to many murders.
Right now, the people responsible for these actions are sheltered by the very person, Attorney General Eric Holder who is tasked with bringing them to justice. There have been larger scandals due to questionable foreign policies that support one side or another in a war, but I think this is the worst law enforcement scandal since the FBI ignored the Mafia or the drug-related blowback from the Vietnam War.
As I see it, the only real question is whether Holder can shelter them till after the November election or not. If he can, then Obama has leeway to pardon them for their heinous crimes. If not, then we may yet see justice prevail.
No, law enforcement does not have wide latitude to let people break laws. They must follow the rules. If they don’t, they’re breaking the law. Which is what they were directed to do. They broke the law, and those who directed them broke the law.
Jim, cops’ latitude isn’t wide enough to encompass giving guns to murderers merely to increase the number of murders, with the goal nothing more than convincing politicians and the public that there’s a crime wave and that they must hire more cops, or give the cops more power.
That’s essentially what this operation was, as confirmed in the memos CBS found, which I linked above.
It’s not just a run of the mill scandal, it’s an action that violated US and international law, Mexican law, and the same kind of action that was prominently listed in the Declaration of Independence as a cause for the Revolution (King George was arming indians and having them attack American settlers in the border areas). As Jefferson stated, when any form of government because abusive of these ends (safety and security), it is the right of the people to abolish it.
People die all the time at the hands of Mexican drug gangs, and they’d die whether or not ATF (under either Bush or Obama) botched sting operations.
So here is a question, if you believe what you wrote Jim, then you believe that increased availability of guns in the US (or Mexico) has no affect on the murder rate? If you don’t agree, then on what basis do you make the statement above?
And to be clear, I completely disagree with your comment, but not because I believe the availability of guns increase crime. Rather, when the US government knowingly provides the guns to drug cartels, rather than making them equally available to both sides of the conflict, then the US is assisting drug cartels in overwhelming law abiding Mexican citizens.
That’s essentially what this operation was, as confirmed in the memos CBS found, which I linked above.
The memos say nothing of the sort. Where do the memos say that someone in ATF hoped to facilitate murders? Where do they say that F&F was initiated in order to build support for policy changes?
It’s not just a run of the mill scandal, it’s an action that violated US and international law, Mexican law, and the same kind of action that was prominently listed in the Declaration of Independence as a cause for the Revolution
Gee, exaggerate much? Talk about Obama Derangement Syndrome….
Rather, when the US government knowingly provides the guns to drug cartels, rather than making them equally available to both sides of the conflict, then the US is assisting drug cartels in overwhelming law abiding Mexican citizens.
Both F&F and Wide Receiver were meant to investigate illegal arms trafficking, so of course they didn’t help law abiding Mexican citizens buy guns. And obviously it’s a bad idea to botch a sting operation so that its targets are helped rather than hindered in their criminal pursuits — no one thinks F&F was a success. But there’s a big difference between a failed sting operation and a criminal conspiracy.
Because their plan to track where the guns ended up was by finding them at murder scenes. They didn’t even let the Mexican government know about the operation. Thus, the only way their investigation worked was by having people murdered. There was no other plan.
Second, since the operation couldn’t provide any useful information that would help stop gun trafficking (and in fact increased it) other than by increasing the numbers of dead bodies linked to gun stores forced to sell guns to cartels by ATF order, there could be only two purposes to the operation.
1) Increase the number of dead bodies linked to particular gun stores to create political pressure to crack down on those sales.
That purpose is confirmed in the memos, matches up with Obama’s “under the radar” statement, and is what has in fact happened, with the ATF issuing limitations on multiple long-gun sales in the Southwest, just as planned.
2) Someone high up in the administration was taking lots of cash from Mexican drug cartels to supply them with guns, and having useful idiots lower down in the administration think the program was meant to pursue option 1. This matches up with US federal agencies letting the Sinaloa cartel freely transport drugs across the border, but only a deep investigation into the finances of all the high administration officials would confirm it.
Both F&F and Wide Receiver were meant to investigate illegal arms trafficking, so of course they didn’t help law abiding Mexican citizens buy guns. And obviously it’s a bad idea to botch a sting operation so that its targets are helped rather than hindered in their criminal pursuits — no one thinks F&F was a success. But there’s a big difference between a failed sting operation and a criminal conspiracy.
Recall what the difference between Wide Receiver and F&F was. When the former lost control of firearms, they stopped the investigation. In the latter investigation, they didn’t even try and in addition they conducted the investigation in a way that was sure to deliver firearms into the hands of known murderers.
Accessory to murder is a quite reasonable charge under the circumstances.
So what action in F&F was botched? Anyone of us can explain what went wrong with Wide Receiver, but Fast and Furious occurred exactly as the officials in charge planned. Jim, you’ve already admitted as such when you wrote:
A death toll doesn’t make much difference. People die all the time at the hands of Mexican drug gangs, and they’d die whether or not ATF (under either Bush or Obama) botched sting operations.
As noted by everyone else, Jim, the biggest difference between Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious was that the former was planned with other members of law enforcement, including the Mexican government. Fast and Furious was stove piped within DOJ, which didn’t even inform the Mexican government. What’s the reason to inform the Mexican government? So that government could take action to protect its citizens and intercept the weapons before they were used in murders. It’s that transparency within and between governments that allows the latitude. Fast and Furious has yet to show how it obtained its latitude.
Obama is on record as saying he is working the gun control issue “under the radar”. And he said this before F&F broke in a major way.
There were a number of people involved with F&F that got promoted. The Obama admin must have thought they did a good job.
Is anyone taking bets on Obama yet? What sort of odds will you give?
Intrade has him at 50% for re-election, which strikes me as about right.
heh. America flips a coin. I want someone to give me 5 to 1 odds so I can take their money when he’s inevitably reelected by the short-memory masses.
I have the sad feeling you’re right. I’d vote for my cat before I vote for Obama, but I’m not like anyone I know except for my close circle of friends. People may talk, but in the end all Obama has to say is “vote for the Republican and politicians will steal food out of your babies’ mouths then run over your grandmother with their limos! Vote for me and I’ll give you free stuff!” and they’ll be all over him. Also? Expect to have the “a vote against Obama is a vote for racism” aspect stepped up, because really they’ve got nothing else once you get past the empty promises of free cheese and protection from insane cannibal Republicans. If there is anything an American fears more than having his grandmother run over by a limo and not getting free stuff, it’s being called a “racist” by talking heads on tv news.
I’d vote for your cat, Andrea, and I’ll bet it would win.
Aside from bringing some desperately missed leadership abilities to the Oval Office, the changes to the White House kitchen would be interesting. I hope foreign diplomats like tuna.
Well, George, aren’t State Dinners a Fancy Feast?
I’d like to start a “Draft Andrea’s Cat” campaign.
Since the base is going to vote against Obama regardless, this would be a good way for the GOP to make inroads on traditionally Democratic voters: spinster cat ladies.
“The LOLCAT Mew-jority.”
Jim,
Stop. Please. You’re killing me.
I already have strained muscles in my abdomen. Your comments are not helping me heal. I’m going to get a Jack Benny look from my doctor again.
Philip II of Macedon, pissed at the Spartans’ refusal to join his League of Hellas, threatened them: “If I invade Laconia, I will destroy your city, kill your men, and enslave your women and children!”
The Spartans returned the laconic (of course) answer: “If”. Neither Philip nor his son Alexander (the Great) attempted to force them into the League.
I just read of Obama’s latest diplomatic effort to Iran, the creation of a “virtual embassy”, that is, website. Iran blocked it withing 12 hours of its opening.
That’s an improvement over Carter, at least. They didn’t invade it and hold the PHP code hostage for a year.
Or, the economic recovery will continue to stagnate, the deficit and the debt will continue to grow, we still won’t address the civil war in Mexico, and we’ll blunder into war with Syria, Iran, and Pakistan while screwing up the fight in Afghanistan, perhaps before Iran and Saudi Arabia acquire nuclear weapons, perhaps.
The US administration is addressing the civil war in Mexico. It’s arming the drug cartels. If the Mexican government had any sense, it would demand reparations for Operation Fast and Furious.